0 registered members (),
1,397
guests, and 7
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: 3d GameStudio vs Doom, Quake, etc engines
[Re: blaaaaa]
#37267
12/03/04 05:21
12/03/04 05:21
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,826 Margaritaville (Redneck Rivier...
myrlyn68
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,826
Margaritaville (Redneck Rivier...
|
Fixing the texture size will likely double the FPS (if not more) for most users in the test level. The other issue is in the shader code itself. Doom 3's shaders are well written and highly optimized, however the one in the example level is not so much so.
There are other issues that can be fixed from within the engine itself (an initial rendering pass without textures to remove faces that will not be visible - and thus reduce the overall calculations needed once a shader is applied), but those are really pretty minor when compared to the shader itself and the textures being used.
Virtual Worlds - Rebuilding the Universe one Pixel at a Time.
Take a look - daily news and weekly content updates.
|
|
|
Re: 3d GameStudio vs Doom, Quake, etc engines
[Re: myrlyn68]
#37268
12/03/04 06:13
12/03/04 06:13
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,856
TheExpert
Senior Developer
|
Senior Developer
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,856
|
well like i already said , with 3DGS you can produce great things , it ony depends on your artist talent and good coding, look at metroid 2 on gamecube , no bump mapping , simple textures , but very great, with 3DGS this studio would use tricks to bypass limitations and they could bring metroid2 to 3DGS like in gamecube version and same quality, with bump mapping for characetrs creatures and some parts of the level.
And 3DGS is the most fast and easy of use of all 3D engines in the same order of price for us , and you can quicly produce something playable like a prototype or a real game than any other 3D engine. For example an Arkanoid game or simple FPS could be done in one hour of programming/testing in C-script ; after that it will take more time to bring it to a good level with better design, 3D models ,textures, etc..
|
|
|
Re: 3d GameStudio vs Doom, Quake, etc engines
[Re: Jupp]
#37272
12/04/04 13:17
12/04/04 13:17
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 815 NY USA
Red Ocktober
Developer
|
Developer
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 815
NY USA
|
lets not delude ourself people... any comparison of the Doom3 engine and A6 is purely incidental... or should i say, coincidental...
but there is hope and progress on the A6 end... as far as the graphics are concerned, take a look at this
and visit the Universal Shader Thread thread...
so, i guess in the hands of a talented developer or two... i think that A6 can be used to make a game that can come verrrry close...
--Mike
|
|
|
Re: 3d GameStudio vs Doom, Quake, etc engines
[Re: myrlyn68]
#37273
12/05/04 00:27
12/05/04 00:27
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Fixing the texture size will likely double the FPS (if not more) for most users in the test level. The other issue is in the shader code itself. Doom 3's shaders are well written and highly optimized, however the one in the example level is not so much so.
what's wrong with the way the shader is written? The shaders is not totally optimized i suppose but what do you suggest since you seem to know? As I've said before that room is very slow because the map is compiled wrong. The blocks must be set to "flat" with tesselate to "auto". I get good framerates in my levels.
|
|
|
|